Perfect example of Eye Test vs Statistics

[KL2]

The Spurs saw his raw talent, he already had NBA size and wasn't done filling out. It's like Cojo/Baynes/Splitter/Green, they look like before they developed but if you know what to look for you can see what they'll develop into. Some will be great, others just average.

Leonard actually does a lot of the same stuff he did back at SDSU, he used to bring the ball up the court a lot and facilitate. He could rebound among anybody which is a skill that generally translates to the NBA, he could get great position in the post, get to the rim at will, get high % shots, knock down 1 handed floaters, he was capable of doing all of this in college. Problem was his shot mechanics were way off.

His elbow was flared out and he release was too slow/high. When your elbow is flared out you have no control of the ball, I have experienced this myself, I changed my shot and I went from bricking everything to making everything with ease.

It made him predictable on offense, he couldn't knock down 3's, jumpers, etc.

[Chinook]

OMFG. STATS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE! It makes no sense to say that stats would lead someone to believe Kawhi would only be a role-player. At best, they would have said Kawhi wasn't much more than a role-player in college (which they don't, as tholdren points out). Stats are descriptive; they show what happened until whatever constraints they're put under. The weakness of them is based on the scope and nature of the constraints, not the philosophy behind them.

Simply put, if a player shoots 10 percent on 1000 shots, then he is not a good shooter, not matter what the eye test says. However, there's no reason why his previous percentage would cap his future production. Stats are IID values for that reason.

[FkLA]

WTF are you even trying to say OP? Are you saying statistics lie? Because at that age Kawhi wasn't the offensive player he is today. Those stats were indicative of the limited offensive player Kawhi was at 19.

Numbers don't lie, biased fanboys do.

[ajh18]

There's a pretty strong case to be made that there is really no such thing as "the eye test." All that term really refers to is a person's brain processing several different metrics and data points that aren't as commonly or as frequently recorded.

-Percent of time the player goes to the right spot in an offensive set.
-Wingspan
-Percent of shots a player takes from his high-efficiency areas
-Relative effectiveness of a player's screens in getting a guard to the basket compared to others
-Etc, etc, etc

These are all the kinds of metrics "they eye test" is actually assessing. Even personality and behavioral traits can be quantified.

[some_user86]

WTF are you even trying to say OP? Are you saying statistics lie? Because at that age Kawhi wasn't the offensive player he is today. Those stats were indicative of the limited offensive player Kawhi was at 19.

Numbers don't lie, biased fanboys do.

No, I think what he is trying to say is that misapplication of statistics to gain predictive value from them is misleading. As Chinook said, stats are descriptive not predictive. But there are clearly a lot of people both inside and outside the NBA who use stats in a predictive fashion (Hollinger's Playoff Predictor and ESPN's Trade Predictor being prime examples).

[FkLA]

No, I think what he is trying to say is that misapplication of statistics to gain predictive value from them is misleading. As Chinook said, stats are descriptive not predictive. But there are clearly a lot of people both inside and outside the NBA who use stats in a predictive fashion (Hollinger's Playoff Predictor and ESPN's Trade Predictor being prime examples).

I see. Im assuming he's somehow trying to use it to defend Enrique's terrible metrics which is pretty dumb and desperate.

[spurs10]

I think the team helps him too..

I concur. It's what the Spurs do.

[Brunodf]

HOLY S#IT THIS BLEW MY MIND

I DIDN'T EXPECT KAWHI TO BE A BIGGER FACTOR ON THE DEFENSIVE END

[Mr Bones]

No, I think what he is trying to say is that misapplication of statistics to gain predictive value from them is misleading. As Chinook said, stats are descriptive not predictive. But there are clearly a lot of people both inside and outside the NBA who use stats in a predictive fashion (Hollinger's Playoff Predictor and ESPN's Trade Predictor being prime examples).

I'd phrase it this way: Stats are a translation of a player's effectiveness, not a purely objective fact of effectiveness. Brandan Wright has awesome statistical numbers as a 20mpg player. He's a great bench player, but that doesn't mean he should get 38 minutes a game. He excels in some match ups, and suffers in others. There have been years when Bonner was a star of the +/- stat.. Again, he benefitted from good match ups during his playing time, but that doesn't mean he was one of the "best" players on the roster.

[Mr Bones]

I see. Im assuming he's somehow trying to use it to defend Enrique's terrible metrics which is pretty dumb and desperate.

Wrong again. I look at stats all the time and definitely see the strong correlation between stats and effective play. I just see that there are repeatedly glitches and shortcomings to most stats too.

[hater]

some truth bombs imo

[Johnny RIngo]

The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player...

It should be noted that there are stat guys out there that build draft models for college players and try to predict their impact in the NBA based on the data. None of them are perfect but some have some interesting results. Here's one that had Leonard as the 2nd best player in the draft:



Also, it's more than likely that the Spurs(along with most teams in NBA) have their own analytics researcher on their staff. It's incredibly naive to think that all they're using is the "eye test" when gauging talent. Here's a list of teams that have an analytics department:

http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/...%20Department/

Completely dismissing all stats as useless(because your favorite player is not rated highly in any of them) is petty and stupid.

[Aztecfan03]

Problem is your trying to compare two different things. There is a difference between someone failing the eye test and the statistics saying otherwise or vice versa, as opposed to trying to use some statistics to project qualities into the future when the two environments are not equivalent (college vs NBA). The main focus of the article is Kawhi's offense, particularly is PPP which often doesn't translate well from college into the NBA, however things like rebounding, steals, and defense generally are good indicators and carryover from college to the NBA.

Side note: Didn't Kawhi play mostly PF in college? If so, the fact all of his stats are being compared to guards (even if he is playing on the perimeter as a SF) is a bit strange.

I think Billy White was the "center" and Malcolm Thomas was PF and Kawhi was SF and the article does says "wings", not "guards" but that SDSU team pretty much had 3 starting PF's

[Andthentherewas21]

I think Billy White was the "center" and Malcolm Thomas was PF and Kawhi was SF and the article does says "wings", not "guards" but that SDSU team pretty much had 3 starting PF's

Thanks for the info

[Mr Bones]

Completely dismissing all stats as useless(because your favorite player is not rated highly in any of them) is petty and stupid.

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

[Johnny RIngo]

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

You claimed that the Spurs predicted Kawhi would be a good player only due to the eye test...which is ridiculous. I already showed you how high Kawhi was ranked in certain draft models. There were a lot of people that thought he was being underrated going into the draft. Spurs have been using analytics for years(longer than most NBA teams) - they more than likely have their own college draft models. A good team will use BOTH(eye test and stats) in coordination when evaluating talent.

And, as many have pointed out in this thread, there are a couple guys like Kawhi in every draft. Most of them don't pan out due to a mul ude of reasons(poor work ethic, injuries, or even inadequate player development from the team itself).

I understand you're angry about everybody ting on Parker using the advanced numbers but that's a poor reason to create a thread like this.

[100%duncan]

That's still true...

People like you are why I love to on TP sometimes

[Raven]

That's still true...

i don't remember marion ever being a fmvp

[DrunkTXLabrat]

And you're blurring things. Eye test means just what it says: what you can see with your eyes, what a player physically presents on the court. If the "heart of a warrior" could be seen by an eye test, Kawhi never falls to #15.

Heart of a warrior is easily apparent. He's falls to 15 and is acquirable because "the celtics suck."

[DrunkTXLabrat]

The linguistics department is important. It's how we communicate clearly. Eye test isn't all that fuzzy. You're the one scrambling it up and misusing it. I'm never going to agree on your broader more convenient to your argument definition.

And no, I've never seen a kid's work ethic on the court. No matter how aggressive they appear, that doesn't translate into hours in the gym hoisting jumpers or doing defensive slides.

The you haven't seen a kids work ethic on the court. You see it in the way he repeatedly rips away the ball for a full court sprint. He has IT, IT is called mojo. It looks beastly. You ignore IT. Cause you don't have IT.

[DrunkTXLabrat]

You claimed that the Spurs predicted Kawhi would be a good player only due to the eye test...which is ridiculous. I already showed you how high Kawhi was ranked in certain draft models. There were a lot of people that thought he was being underrated going into the draft. Spurs have been using analytics for years(longer than most NBA teams) - they more than likely have their own college draft models. A good team will use BOTH(eye test and stats) in coordination when evaluating talent.

And, as many have pointed out in this thread, there are a couple guys like Kawhi in every draft. Most of them don't pan out due to a mul ude of reasons(poor work ethic, injuries, or even inadequate player development from the team itself).

I understand you're angry about everybody ting on Parker using the advanced numbers but that's a poor reason to create a thread like this.

The stats said kawhi was a mediocre player. Good d and rebounding, poor shooter. The spurs used the eye test, their "tired of richard jeffersonness," and their tired of hill or parkerness to take the best gamble they've ever taken. The spurs should gamble on their eye test and situational desperation more often. But instead the stashers mess their bodies up abroad, while we sit and defend Bonner and Ayers because it looks like somebody on the coaching staff believes in them.

[Yuixafun]

The eye test to me, has always implied a quick study, semi superficial like... "Well he looks the part..." ... But how deep a person can see with that glance varies.... It is why some people can see something in someone no one else does, or enables to look past the obvious and gimmicks.

In regards to cultivating a visionary philosophy, keep this in mind....

Look straight ahead, what's there, if you see it for what it is you will never err.

To see with eyes unclouded by hate...

[Agloco]

Best Case: Shawn Marion
Worst Case: Luc Richard Mbah A Moute

That's still true...

Lol no.

[Mr Bones]

You claimed that the Spurs predicted Kawhi would be a good player only due to the eye test...which is ridiculous. I already showed you how high Kawhi was ranked in certain draft models. There were a lot of people that thought he was being underrated going into the draft. Spurs have been using analytics for years(longer than most NBA teams) - they more than likely have their own college draft models. A good team will use BOTH(eye test and stats) in coordination when evaluating talent.

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

You are very bad at reading comprehension.

[Johnny RIngo]

Again, your entire response is disingenuous and untrue. I've never "dismissed all stats." I've said again and again I look at stats all the time and think a combination of stats and the eye test is the way to go, and also that the reason I'm familiar with glitches in stats is because I spend so much time studying them. I've never said Parker is my "favorite player." He's not even one of my top 30 favorite players in the League. You're arguing with an imaginary person, not me, not the person who actually wrote my posts.

The eye test from the lead scouts of the Spurs identified him as a good player capable of improvement... whereas going by the stats you might say this guy's nothing but a role player...

attributing the Spurs drafting Leonard only due to the eye test.

Again, empty claims without any proof. Spurs aren't the Knicks or Bobcats. They actually have an analytics department and have been using advanced metrics longer than most teams in the league.